Undergrad Minkowski metric and proper time interpretation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of the Minkowski metric and proper time in the context of general relativity, specifically near a heavy mass. The metric is defined as ##d\tau^2 = a dt^2 - dx^2##, with the clarification that ##a < 1## for the Schwarzschild metric. Participants clarify that clocks near a mass tick slower compared to a reference clock at ##y=0##, and that the metric is only valid locally. Misunderstandings regarding the relationship between ##d\tau## and ##dt## are addressed, emphasizing the importance of local reference frames.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity concepts, specifically the Schwarzschild metric.
  • Familiarity with the Minkowski metric and proper time calculations.
  • Basic knowledge of gravitational effects on time dilation.
  • Ability to interpret mathematical expressions in physics, particularly in the context of spacetime metrics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Schwarzschild metric in detail, focusing on its implications for time dilation.
  • Learn about local reference frames in general relativity and their significance in metric interpretations.
  • Explore the concept of proper time and its calculation in various gravitational fields.
  • Investigate the relationship between gravitational potential and clock rates in different regions of spacetime.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying general relativity, cosmology, or anyone interested in the effects of gravity on time perception and measurement.

msumm21
Messages
247
Reaction score
28
TL;DR
I'm trying to learn general relativity, but misunderstanding how the metric implies that time appears to pass slower for something near a heavy mass, as viewed from something far away
Using an example of 1 space dimension and 1 time dimension, consider the metric ##d\tau^2 = a dt^2 - dx^2## near a heavy mass (##a>1##).

From what I've read a clock ticks slower near a heavy mass, as viewed from an observer far away. A clock tick would be representative of ##d\tau## right (not ##dt##)? If so, then my confused understanding is below.

If ##a## is large, then small ##dt## results in large ##d\tau##. If the far away observer's ##d\tau## is approximately ##dt##, then his clock tick, say ##dt=1## corresponds to ##d\tau >> 1## near the mass. My interpretation of this is that the clock near the mass ticks ##d\tau >> dt## ticks (it ticks more than the clock far from the mass), and hence the clock near the mass moves faster. I realize this is wrong, but not clear what part is wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your basic assumption is wrong: ##a < 1## for the Schwarzschild metric.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and vanhees71
The book I'm reading (General Relativity: The Theoretical Minimum by Susskind) says the metric is approximately ##d\tau^2 = (1+2gy)dt^2 - dy^2## where the grav potential is ##gy## but yes I see this doesn't jive with stuff I see on Wikipedia. I must have misunderstood what this metric was supposed to be in the first place. Does anyone know what this metric is?
 
msumm21 said:
I must have misunderstood what this metric was supposed to be in the first place. Does anyone know what this metric is?
This is a local metric, only valid in a small region. The reference is not a clock at infinity, but a clock at ##y=0##. Clocks at higher ##y## will be faster and clocks at lower ##y## will be slower compared to the reference clock.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes PeterDonis, vanhees71, msumm21 and 2 others
Dale said:
This is a local metric, only valid in a small region. The reference is not a clock at infinity, but a clock at y=0. Clocks at higher y will be faster and clocks at lower y will be slower compared to the reference clock.
Oh yes I think I'm getting it now, thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
692
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
913